Customer Reviews

What does Joan say? : my seven years as White House astrologer to Nancy and Ronald Reagan

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book should be a lot better known. Not only does it provide a fascinating insight into the Reagan presidency, but it also does a good job of explaining exactly what a professional astrologer does and how he works. As Quigley explains it, astrology is not fortune telling, but a useful tool for making the most of opportunities and minimizing setbacks. Could it have been astrology that was Reagan's "teflon"? As the Reagans' personal astrologer, Quigley chose the timing of Air Force One's departures, congressional arm-twisting meetings, press conferences, the timing and locations of summit conferences; gave advice on how to handle Mikhail Gorbachev and what demands to make in negotiations. She was also responsible for the remaking of Nancy Reagan's public image. Those who know something about astrology will nod in recognition at a lot of Quigley's insights; those who scoff at astrology will be drop-jawed. Ms. Quigley writes well, although I detect the hand of an editor in several places, especially on those occasions when Quigley attributes remarks to Mrs. Reagan disparaging the elder Bush. These sentences are inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the book and appear to have been inserted to give the book some "dirt." I found this a fascinating book and would recommend it to anyone interested in astrology or in the Reagan presidency. There's a lot to ponder here.

As an astrologer naturally I was interested to read what another astrologer had to say about President Ronald Reagan and wife Nancy. Famous people are always instructive for astrologers because not only their birth dates but facts of their lives are widely available.

This book is very interesting from an historical perspective--giving inside details of the major events of RR's time in the White House. I have several things against what Ms. Quigley wrote. I will give them in order from least important to most important.

Firstly, I wish that there had been more astrological detail for me to evaluate. I realize that Ms. Quigley was writing for the general public and didn't want to get too technical.

More importantly, I found her lack of humility disturbing and off-putting. It was preposterous and to me in the same profession, embarrassing, that she bragged so insistently and repeatedly that she had "protected the president" from assassination and that she was the creator of the "Teflon" presidency. No astrologer or any other human being can prove that they were the protection or creation of something that did not happen. There is no way of proving that the electrical grid in the whole world didn't stop because of the preventive efforts for Y2K. Prevention cannot be proved--period. Is she God? Couldn't other factors have affected RR's presidency? Such as his charm and likeableness, his speech writers, his public relations people, his quick acting and self sacrificing body guards? It is a little presumptuous to think she was the sole protector and creator of it all! No astrologer (or anyone) unless they are angels can claim to categorically know that they have prevented a tragedy in someone's life. The fact is that with everything in this very imperfect world, astrology is not 100% accurate and anyone that says so is deluding themselves and others.

Still, I can understand this foible. She wants to promote the efficacy of astrology and to silence the critics. I do, too. This much is true: to be forewarned in order to prepare oneself is to be forearmed. If you knew that you were going to get cancer, wouldn't you change your diet, stop smoking, etc., in order to increase your chances of prevention?

No, it is not Ms. Quigley's arrogance that bothers me; but the truly treacherous thing she did in this book--the cruel things she wrote about Nancy Reagan. An astrologer or anyone in the helping profession should be held to the highest ethical standards. Confidentiality, kindness and loyalty should be our basic standards of behavior. People come to us who are vulnerable, and anxious. Nancy Reagan had good reason to be worried. After only 69 days in office, her husband narrowly missed being assassinated. He was the first president elected in a year ending in zero that wasn't killed since Harrison in 1840. Ms. Quigley wrote a lot of nice things about Nancy Reagan in her book. Nevertheless, one or two mean words can destroy thousands of good ones. It's bad enough to tell privately one's friends and family members; but to murder someone's reputation publicly is vile and inexcusable. I would never go to an astrologer who wrote those things about another client. Betrayal of trust is the worst crime.

Sincerely,
Laurie Friese, 4-year degreed Indian Astrologer (Jyotish)
LaurieFriese.com

This is a great read! It could be partly because I understand her lingo (being an astrologer). Joan is phenomenal and I do believe what she has recorded in this book. I am just sorry that the Reagans never felt compelled to admit how helpful Joan's astrological as well as simple "common sense" advice had been for them all those years.

Reagan wanted no part of sitting down to talks with those 'barbarous Ruskies' until Joan put in a good word about how Ronnie and Gorby would hit it off and together end the cold war. I believe her. Afterall, Ronnie had just left a "black-listing" Hollywood where people that spoke with a Communist might end up never working again.

Thank goodness for Joan. From her writing, I feel that she is extremely intelligent and very well versed in world history and world political issues. This contributed greatly to her being able to put in a good word for working with the Russians whose system was on the verge of collapse for those with a good antenna. No, not our CIA. They had no idea that the end of the cold war was near and Gorby was ready for a hand up into a different way of politics at home, but Joan knew. Reads like a good mystery.

Where is Joan now when we really need her?

This book is interesting for one reason, and one reason alone: Joan Quigley, as Mrs. Reagan's personal astrologist, was able to influence world events. At least, that's what appears to be the case if one believes Ms. Quigley's account. However, considering how exciting this book could have been, it is actually rather dull. There is a lot of talk about astrological signs and symbols that the average reader has no chance of understanding.

I do not believe in astrology. The most interesting part about Ms. Quigley's contention that astrology is a respectable field--just like any scientific endeavor. If that is true, why is Ms. Quigley free to publish her private accounts with Mrs. Reagan? If astrology is a respectable field, shouldn't there be limits to how much information you can reveal about private information with another person?

"What Does Joan Say?", Joan Quigley

Has any other US President ever used the services of an astrologer to guide their activities? If not, what is the use of this belief for Ronald Reagan? Would anyone be elected in this country if their belief in astrology was known? No, but there are people who share in this belief. Just as schoolbook histories tell us that US Presidents were all fine gentlemen (except for a few), none tell about personal faults unless forced to do so by a scandal. Donald Regan's 1988 book told on Nancy after she got him fired. The author of "Dutch" said Reagan was senile during his second term and probably for most of his first term. This secret was well-hidden from the American public. Reagan was a trained actor and knew his lines. Reporters at Press Conferences ask the questions that were approved in advance so there would be no surprises and the president seems to be all-knowing.

When I first heard Reagan used an "astrologer" for advice I thought it was a cover story, like FDR's use of "magic" to predict Japanese military actions. I don't know who or what influenced Joan's predictions. "There are always limitations" (p.202). Joan said Nancy's book "My Turn" read like fiction and is "evasive" (p.11). Joan contributed ideas that "shaped administration policy". Astrological analysis is based on "accurate scientific material" like "an economist bases his predictions on statistics" (p.13). [How accurate are predictions by economists? Most seem to be hired advocates for the policies of their employer.] Joan graduated from Vassar with honors, has a knowledge of history, and hopes astrology will be regarded as a respected science (p.19). Read this book as a personal memoir of her involvement with Nancy and the Reagan administration. It is as important as you think it is.

The `Appendix' tells of Joan's beliefs that planets control out lives and destiny. Are our faults in the stars or in our own individual habits and actions? If the latter, astrology is bunk. Astrology can not predict the performance of stocks, the fortunes of corporations, or the actions of ordinary people. Can the planet Uranus, discovered in 1781, affect people and history (p.194)? Can it cause "death by assassination" (p.195)? Can Neptune cause "fraud, scandal, false testimony and lies" (p.197)? Did Pluto (no longer a planet) cause Dan Quayle's problems (p.197)? If someone believes planets control events on earth are they being fooled by those with an agenda? What if a new planet was discovered today? If the foul-ups of the Reagan Presidency were due to the stars, what about any successes? [I can't think of one myself.] Did astrologers predict that Nancy would pick Joan to be her astrologer?

After reading this book I'm firmly convinced that Joan Quigley truly believes in astrology. I'm also convinced that, despite her self-professed belief that astrology is a "science," she is an intelligent, well educated, well informed and insightful woman who in all probability gave some useful advice to Nancy Reagan during Ronald Reagan's tenure as president of the United States. Her book, however, left me cold.

Unfortunately, I find most of Quigley's claims rather hard to swallow. For example; that working backwards using Reagan's personal appearance, health problems and psychological characteristics, she was able to "scientifically" determine astrologically not just the hour of his birth, or the minute, but the very second (pgs 122-123). To those who are not in tune with astrology, then, and particularly skeptics and non believers, this book will be a difficult read seemingly filled with incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo and unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) claims.

Although the author cites many instances in which she presumably used her astrological wizardry to save the country, the world, or Reagan and his missions from disaster, I couldn't help but wonder what might have happened in the absence of her tinkering. How many times would Reagan have been killed in an airplane crash? Would we have had World War III? Would Reagan even have become president? Would he have been assassinated or impeached? Who knows? But I suspect that Ronald Reagan had a lot more to do with his achievements and successes than did the sun or moon rising, or some planet passing through a particular sign in the zodiac at a particular point in time.

In any event, however, it can't be denied that Joan Quigley did counsel Nancy Reagan, based upon her astrological forecasts, that Nancy took her seriously, and that Quigley's advice was used in many cases to plan the president's schedule. Whether or not this had a salutary effect, a negative effect, or any effect at all on the events associated with these schedules will never be known. There can be little doubt, however, that Quigley's book will be of more than passing interest to a certain class of future historians as they seek to better understand Ronald Reagan and his presidency. For that reason alone, it may be worth reading.